L.A. Times prints column criticizing its Sheehan coverage

[DeepModem Mom]

Peacenik paper fawns over antiwar mom
An occasional column in which the Los Angeles Times invites outside critics to wallop (the LAT)
By Patrick Frey, Patrick Frey runs a blog called Patterico's Pontifications (www.patterico.com).


I CANNOT IMAGINE what it would be like to lose my child the way Cindy Sheehan lost her son, Casey, in Iraq. The bereaved mother, who until Thursday had been camped outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, has every right to protest the war, and her demonstration was certainly news.

But in its apparent zeal to portray Sheehan as the Rosa Parks of the antiwar movement, the Los Angeles Times has omitted facts and perspectives that might undercut her message or explain the president's reluctance to meet with her again.

For example, The Times uncritically reported Sheehan's claim that the president had behaved callously in a June 2004 meeting with her and her husband, refusing to look at pictures of Casey or listen to stories about him. The Times claimed without qualification that Sheehan "came away from that meeting dissatisfied and angry."

But the article failed to mention that Sheehan had previously described Bush as sincere and sympathetic in the meeting....Ironically, columnists Jonathan Chait and Margaret Carlson evidently assumed that The Times had informed its readers about Sheehan's contradictions, and ran columns that unconvincingly tried to reconcile Sheehan's varying versions. But even the Washington Post — no bastion of the fabled vast right-wing conspiracy — saw discrepancies between Sheehan's former and current descriptions of her meeting with the president....

***

Of course, hundreds of mothers across the country also continue to support the war despite having lost their own sons in Iraq. These mothers have no less moral authority than Cindy Sheehan, but their views have been sorely lacking in The Times' unbalanced coverage of Sheehan's protest....The Times has woefully failed its readers with its one-sided coverage of the Cindy Sheehan story.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-tent21aug21,0,2004389.story?coll=la-home-sunday-opinion

[Gildor Inglorion]

1. Op-ed piece? Or is the LA Times just suicidal?

Of course we all know already that right-wingers are vile and insane, since a steady stream of their venom flows undiluted from every available news outlet. I'm sorry I read this, and I'm sorry the world is full of fools who share this person's evil perspective. This may be the single most horrific sentence ever printed: "Of course, hundreds of mothers across the country also continue to support the war despite having lost their own sons in Iraq." OF COURSE? OF COURSE? Dear God... words fail me.